Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: re-assessment of classical theories about fit between CSR actions and corporate activities

Nuria Villagra e-mail(Login required) , Miguel A. M. Cárdaba e-mail(Login required) , José A. Ruiz San Román e-mail(Login required)

Article Sidebar

PDF (187) PDF (Español) (99)
View in DADUN
Published: Apr 1, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.35927
How to Cite
Villagra, N., Cárdaba, M. A. M., & Ruiz San Román, J. A. (2016). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: re-assessment of classical theories about fit between CSR actions and corporate activities. Communication & Society, 29(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.35927

Main Article Content

Authors

Nuria Villagra e-mail(Login required)
Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Miguel A. M. Cárdaba e-mail(Login required)
Centro Universitario Villanueva.
José A. Ruiz San Román e-mail(Login required)
Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Abstract

488
The literature on effective communication of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) paints a complex and occasionally contradictory picture of the role of alignment between corporate activities and CSR actions, classically termed “corporate fit”. Some authors highlight the importance of such alignment for effective communication of CSR, whereas other authors suggest that such fit can engender skepticism and public behaviors that harm the company. In addition, more recent work suggests the importance of “personal fit”, which refers to alignment between CSR actions and what receivers of the CSR communication consider to be personally relevant. In order to clarify this complex picture, we randomly assigned 86 young people to three groups: one was exposed to CSR communication showing corporate fit, another to CSR communication showing personal fit, and the third to control (non-CSR) communication. In contrast to what the literature might predict, we found that the CSR message with corporate fit was as persuasive as the control message for convincing subjects to rate the company as sincere and honest and to be willing to sign a declaration in favor of the company. The message with personal fit led to higher ratings of sincerity and honesty, as well as greater willingness to sign the declaration. These results suggest the need to re-assess the role of classical corporate fit in the communication of CSR actions, and they raise the possibility that other types of fit exist and may even be stronger determinants of the effectiveness of CSR communication.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility, corporate communication, fit, personal fit communication effectiveness, persuasion

References

Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don´t know about Corporate Social Responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management 38(4), 932-968.

Arthur W. Page Society (2012). Building Belief: A New Model for Activating Corporate Character and Authentic Advocacy. New York, NY: Arthur W. Page Society.

Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics 96(3), 339-354.

Ashforth, B.E. & Gibbs, B.W. (1990).The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science 1(2), 177-194.

Barlett, J.L. & Devin, B. (2011). Management, communication and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 47-66). UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumer respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review 47(1), 9-24.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. & Hill, R.P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 59(1), 46-53.

Bowen, H. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper.

Branco, M. & Rodrigues, L.L. (2006). Communication of corporate social responsibility by portuguese banks: A legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11(3), 232-248.

Brändle, G., Cárdaba, M.A., & Ruiz, J.A. (2011). The Risk of Emergence of Boomerang Effect in Communication against Violence. Comunicar 37(19), 161-168. (DOI: 10.3916/C37-2011-03- 08).

Briñol, P., Corte, L. & Becerra, A. (2008). Qué es persuasión. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society 38(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A.B. & Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), 85-105.

Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews 7(2), 91-109.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), 8-19.

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks. Oxford: Capstone.

Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. & Mohr, L.A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(2), 147-157.

Elving, W.J.L. (2010). CSR and Skepticism: The Influence of Fit and Reputation on Skepticism Towards CSR Communications. Proceedings of the Conference on Corporate Communication 2010, 63-78.

Elving, W.J.L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications 19(4), 277-292.

Elving, W.J.L., Golob, U., Podnar, K., Ellerup-Nielsen, A. & Thomson, C. (2015). The bad, the ugly and the good: new challenges for CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 20(2), 118-127.

Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and corporate reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10(4), 341-350.

Garriga, E. & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53, 51-71.

Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W.J.L., Nielsen, A.E., Thomsen, C. & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18(2), 176-192.

Grohmann, B. & Bodur, H.O. (2015). Brand Social Responsibility: Conceptualization, measurement, and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 131, 375-399.

Fombrun, C.J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Forehand, M.R. & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13(3), 349-356.

Hale, J., Mongeau, P. & Thomas, R. (1991). Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive message. Western Journal of Speech Communication 55, 380-389.

Illia, L., Zyglidopoulos, S.C., Romenti, S., Rodríguez-Canovas, B. & González del Valle, A. (2013). Communicating CSR to a cynical public. MIT Sloan Management Review 54(3), 16- 19.

Jahdi, K.S. & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics 88(1), 103-113.

Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, S. (2001). Measuring corporate reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6(1), 31-35.

Lii, Y.S. & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics 105(1), 69-81.

Middlemiss, N. (2003). Authentic not cosmetic: CSR as brand enhancement. The Journal of Brand Management 10(4), 353-361.

Morsing, M. & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4), 323-338.

Morsing, M., Schultz, M. & Nielsen, K.U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 97-111.

Nan, X. & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising 36(2), 63-74.

Pollach, I. (2005). Corporate self-presentation on the WWW: Strategies for enhancing usability, credibility and utility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10(4), 285-301.

Polonsky, M. & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: an overview of three types of complexity. International Marketing Review 26(3), 327-347.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2006).The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12), 78-92.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011).Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review 89 (1-2), 62-77.

Rodríguez, L.C. & Le Master, J. (2007). Voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure SEC “CSR Seal of Approval”. Business & Society 46(3), 370-384.

Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38(2), 225- 243.

Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1096-1120.

Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management 21(3-4), 267-290.

Schmeltz, L. (2012). Consumer-oriented CSR communication: focusing on ability or morality? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17(1), 29-49.

Seele, P. & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR Communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics 131, 401-414.

Simmons, C.J. & Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing 70(4), 154-169.

Skard, S. & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 124, 149-160.

Swaen, V. & Vanhamme, J. (2004). See how “Good” we are: The Dangers of Using Corporate Social Activities in Communication Campaigns. Advances in Consumer Research 31, 302- 303.

Swaen, V. & Vanhamme, J. (2005). The use of corporate social responsibility arguments in communication campaigns: does source credibility matter? Advances in Consumer Research 32(1), 590-591.

Van de Ven, B. (2008). An ethical framework for the marketing of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 82(2), 339-352.

Vanhamme, J. & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics 85(2), 273-283.

Villagra, N. & López, B. (2013). Analysis of values and communication of the responsible brands. Corporate brand strategies for sustainability. Communication & Society / Comunicación y Sociedad 26(1), 196-221.

Waddock, S., Bodwell, C. & Graves, S.B. (2002). Responsibility: the new business imperative.vAcademy of Management Executive 16(2), 132-148.

Waddock S. & Goggins, B.K. (2011). The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 23-43). UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z. & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16(4), 377-390.

Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2002). The social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals: evidence from the Brent Spar case. Journal of Business Ethics 36(1-2), 141-151.

Metrics

Search GoogleScholar



Details

Article Details

Issue
Vol 29 No 2 (2016)
Section
Articles

RIGHTS TRANSFER

By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.

In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.

The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.

Licencia de Creative Commons
Communication & Society is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0.